Funny thing about IGN

[Xantan the Foul]

Every page I go to pulls up an ad for the new Musashi game, which scrolls down the page, making me have to notice it to close it.

But IGN gave the game a 5.2!

So it's like "Buy this game!" but then they turn around and say in their review "Go buy another game, this one is boring and repetitive" :roll:

[studvicious]

but if that game company is throwing some mad $$$ at you - you would put that ad wherever they wanted 8-)

But I agree it does send a mixed subliminal message.

[o2william]

Actually that's a good thing... what would be worse is if IGN gave the game a good review just because the company paid them lots of $$$. The advertising and the editorial content have to be kept separate, or else the reviews mean nothing.

[Xantan the Foul]

I just think it's funny that they would put continual ads about a game that they felt was, at best, mediocre. LOL

[Bluteg]

That's what you get for looking at IGN.

Seriously though I'm sure the people behind IGN's advertising have nothing to do with the PS2 review site.

[tholly]

It's all about making money....but it is a poor choice on the part of the game makers. At least advertise on a site that liked your game (unless there aren't any mainstream sites that liked your game.)

[NE146]

Yeah what are they supposed to do.. tell the company "we didn't like your game so we're not going to put your ad up all the time like you wanted and are paying us to do"? :P

[Push Upstairs]

I have hated IGN since they started using ads.

Back when thier DVD section was one of the best (IMO) on the web they didnt have any ads. Pretty soon they started using those damn "interactive ads", ya know, those ones that show up *ABOVE* what you are reading and require you to click on it to close it. After about the 12th time of having my (old) computer freeze because of some damn "Planet of the Apes" ad coupled with thier coverage and articles going to shit I swore off the place forever.

[zmweasel]

It's all about making money....but it is a poor choice on the part of the game makers. At least advertise on a site that liked your game (unless there aren't any mainstream sites that liked your game.)

Videogame ads are typically bought and placed *before* a game's release, not after it ships (and is reviewed).

-- Z.

[chrisbid]

in order for money to influence a rating, i would assume that companies would pay off the editors directly, rather than the website as a whole.

[alexkidd2000]

I hate the ads on IGN too, but what other site is as good?

[Sartori]

http://www.gamesarefun.com
http://www.the-magicbox.com

[NE146]

Ads don't bother me.. I just never look at them. You can parade a dozen of them on my screen and I'll never be able to tell you what they were for even if you asked me a second later 8-)

[Great Hierophant]

Editors assign games to reviewers based on their likes and dislikes, strengths and weaknesses. They are under pressure from their superiors to turn out the best possible reviews. They apply this pressure below in many ways.

Reviewer gets a game. Some reviewers are superficial and rate a game higher if it has excellent, cutting edge graphics than a game with average or "retro" graphics. Other reviewers don't like a seemingly popular game but write a good review of it for fear of being marginalized. Finally, other reviews truly believe the more cutscenes, the merrier as if video games were a form of digitized anime.

Pressure is exerted from above. Too often, the reviewer is not given the time he needs to properly review the game in question, He is favorably impressed by the initial flashiness without finding out there is nothing more. The editor may revise the review and require it to be resubmitted. If the editor feels the game is not right for the editor, he can reassign it or add a second reviewer to it. They can always work the numbers.

Companies cannot buy ads for a game in anticipation of the game's review score. But they can observe the publication's treatment of their games and respond accordingly. The publisher, hearing rumors of reduced advertising revenue or tardy review copies may take steps to ensure that doesn't happen.

Editorial integrity is always a hobgoblin of the newsmedia. Product reviewers are especially vulnerable because they are dependent on the product. The video game media is immature and beholden to the large publishers, moreso than in other forms of entertainment. Movie reviewers, by contrast, frequently tee off on Hollywood's latest blockbusters. Show me a reviewer that condemned Metal Gear Solid 2 as the most pretentious FMV excuse for a game since Myst.

[zmweasel]

Movie reviewers, by contrast, frequently tee off on Hollywood's latest blockbusters. Show me a reviewer that condemned Metal Gear Solid 2 as the most pretentious FMV excuse for a game since Myst.

Thing is, most Hollywood blockbusters are horrible, whereas Metal Gear Solid 2 was an excellent game (despite the ridiculous storyline and the Raiden bait-and-switch). No reviewer condemned it because it didn't deserve to be condemned.

Have you actually worked as a videogame journalist, or are you just repeating what you've heard?

-- Z.